The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

MD
42,10 Looking back on their
“great works”
Insights from the authors of great works
1326 in organizational behavior and human
resource management
Anthony R. Wheeler, Eve Richter and Sajith Sahadevan
California State University, Sacramento, California, USA
Keywords Management history, Organizational behaviour, Human resource management,
Management gurus, Literature
Abstract The article synthesizes the interview responses from ten authors who have published
heavily cited research in the fields of organizational behavior and human resource management.
The authors of these “great works” provided insights on their own works while also providing
guidance to authors who aspire to produce future great works in management. The article utilizes
facets of the grounded theory approach to analyze the qualitative responses of the authors, which
enabled the presentation of common themes of the authors’ responses that might be useful to both
management scholars and practitioners engaged in the research process.

The phrase “Great works in management history” conveys a unique meaning to every
organizational scholar and practitioner, as the other articles in this issue depict. For
those of us who share similar views, “Great works in management history” has become
a common vernacular, a way in which scholars and practitioners speak to each other. A
simple phrase, often the names of authors and the year in which the research was
published, becomes an exemplar, an abstraction for understanding an organizational
concept or phenomenon. While these exemplars or abstractions inform us about
organizations, the authors who produced these now exemplars or abstractions can also
inform us of how to develop the next great work in management history. As such, the
purpose of the present article is to gain insights from the authors of great works that
might be helpful to scholars and practitioners engaged in the process of developing
new knowledge about organizations.

Introduction
Many organizational scholars have devoted considerable resources to document the
evolution of the field of management. Anyone who has read Wren’s (1994) Evolution
of Management Thought likely claims that book to be a great influence on their
understanding of management in organizations; furthermore, management scholars
periodically publish lists and rankings of influential books and journals (e.g.

The authors would like to thank Blake Ashforth, Jenny Chatman, Jerry Greenberg, Jeff
Management Decision
Vol. 42 No. 10, Greenhaus, Marilyn Gist, Amy Kristof-Brown, Ed Locke, Fred Mael, Mick Mount, and Ben
pp. 1326-1342 Schneider for providing them with their insights about their work. They would also like to thank
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Jonathon Halbesleben and Michael Buckley for their substantive comments on earlier versions of
DOI 10.1108/00251740410569006 this manuscript.
Bedeian and Wren, 2001; Werner, 2002; Wiseman and Skilton, 1999; Zickar and “Great works”
Highhouse, 2001) to facilitate learning about management. These lists and rankings
provide scholars and practitioners with the necessary resources to not only
understand organizational phenomena, but to also provide the foundation for
developing future knowledge about organizations. Moreover, for the novice scholar
or practitioner, the books, journals, and articles included in these lists and rankings
most likely become highly-valenced goals; and the authors of these works then 1327
become role models. We might not all be fortunate enough to work directly with
these authors, but everyone can certainly learn something from these authors
through reading their works.
We chose to learn about the authors of articles that we found highly influential to
our development as scholars and practitioners in the fields of organizational behavior
(OB) and human resource management (HRM). We selected nine journal articles that
we viewed as being “great works” in OB and HRM (see Table I). The average number
of citations, as tracked through the Social Sciences Citations Index (SSCI), for this
group of articles was 341 citations. We then sent electronic mail (e-mail) to the authors
of the articles, to which ten authors responded (see Table II). The e-mail described the
purpose of the study, included the announcement for the special issue of this journal,
and asked the authors to give their thoughts regarding four questions. These four
questions reflected our curiosity about this topic and should not be thought of as
scientific in nature. After receiving feedback from the authors, we compiled the

Author(s) Journal outlet Times citeda

Gist and Mitchell (1992) Academy of Management Review 261

Barrick and Mount (1991) Personnel Psychology 632
Greenberg (1990) Journal of Applied Psychology 167
Kristof (1996) Personnel Psychology 124
Schneider (1987a) Personnel Psychology 391
Locke et al. (1981) Psychological Bulletin 745
Chatman (1991) Administrative Science Quarterly 193
Ashforth and Mael (1989) Academy of Management Review 300
Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) Academy of Management Review 264 Table I.
Note: a Social Sciences Citations Index (SSCI) count as of June 2004 List of articles

Name Affiliation

Marilyn E. Gist Seattle University

Michael K. Mount University of Iowa
Jerald Greenberg The Ohio State University
Amy L. Kristof-Brown University of Iowa
Ben Schneider University of Maryland
Edwin A. Locke University of Maryland
Jennifer A. Chatman University of California, Berkeley
Blake E. Ashforth Arizona State University Table II.
Fred A. Mael American Institutes for Research Authors responding to
Jeffrey H. Greenhaus Drexel University e-mail
MD responses into one master file of responses, with all responses from question one placed
42,10 together, all responses from question two placed together, and so forth.
From this point, we engaged in a process of identifying themes that was based on
the grounded theory method of qualitative analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Locke,
2002). Simply described, each of the three authors of the present article separately read
the master file of author responses and looked for themes in the responses. We then
1328 merged our individual themes into groups of common themes for each question asked.
These common themes provided us insight into how the authors of “great works”
viewed their work and the work of other authors, and based on a synthesis of these
themes we provide “lessons learned” that we hope will be of some utility to those who
are learning to conduct and publish organizational research. We devote the remainder
of this article to describing the responses of the authors and the lessons learned for
developing sound research.

Why do you think your article has been so heavily cited?

We asked the authors in our sample to discuss why they believed that their work had
been so well received and so heavily cited. The responses of the authors could be
categorized into four themes:
(1) timing of the article or addressing a need in the literature;
(2) defining or clarifying constructs in the article;
(3) focusing on multiple levels of the organization; and
(4) becoming a foundation article.
Often, the authors attributed the appeal of their articles to all four themes.

Timing of article or addressing a need in the literature

Of the ten authors who responded to our email, all ten discussed the importance of
timing during the research and publication process, even if fortune played a role:
I think we were lucky with the timing . . . Plus, cognition and self-related issues were of
growing interest in OB, and our paper came along at the right time. So we inadvertently
addressed a need. We were pretty naı̈ve, and we actually sent it to a “B” journal first for
reasons that I can’t remember. They thought the focus was too narrow and so we then went to
AMR [Academy of Management Review ]: I have no doubt that the paper would not be nearly
as well known if our first home had been our last (B.E. Ashforth, personal communication,
March 24, 2004).
Professor Schneider echoed similar thoughts when stating:
I think it came along at a time when alternative frameworks for understanding organizational
functioning were needed. The ASA [Attraction-Selection-Attrition] model, with its focus on
people, offered another vantage point on organizational design and promoted the thought
that there is a lot going on beneath the obvious surface that contributes to how organizations
eventually look and feel (B. Schneider, personal communication, March 17, 2004).
However, as seen in Professor Schneider’s response, when researchers fill an existing
need in the literature with a substantive contribution, the research itself makes the
timing appear important.
Defining or clarifying constructs in the article “Great works”
One of the most crucial aspects of any scientific endeavor is defining the constructs of
interest (Bacharach, 1989). Articles that become “great works” define or clarify
constructs in a way that future researchers rely on. Professor Greenhaus summarizes
the importance of defining and refining constructs:
Research on work-family issues in general and work-family conflict in particular was
beginning to take off in the late 1970s and early 1980s but there had not been a conceptual 1329
framework to guide future research . . . It defined work-family conflict, identified different
forms and directions of conflict, summarized the somewhat limited literature at that time, and
suggested areas for additional research. It attempted to pull things together and I think it
succeeded pretty well (J.H. Greenhaus, personal communication, March 19, 2004).
Professor Gist also emphasized the clarity of writing, often achieved through
collaboration with co-authors and peers, when describing the success of her research:
It clarified how much change we could expect to attain in self-efficacy through what kinds of
interventions, and what boundary conditions on malleability might be expected. I also believe
the piece was well conceived, well supported, and well written. I have always felt that the
paper resulted from an excellent collaboration with Terry Mitchell; we had very
complementary skills for the task (M.E. Gist, personal communication, April 3, 2004).
Whetten (1989) best summarizes the utility of outstanding research in noting that
research should address four main issues: what, how, when, and why. The responses
from our sample of authors reinforce this notion.

Focusing on multiple levels of an organization

One reason why the articles in our sample have been so heavily cited could be that
many of the articles addressed issues on multiple levels of organizations that interest
both organizational scholars and practitioners alike:
Everyone, academics and practitioners alike, struggle with the concept of fit both personally
and professionally when looking for jobs, considering hiring others, deciding whether to stay
or leave, etc . . . The perspective [developed in the article] offers something for both
psychologists who are interested in people in context (individual differences and all the
individual outcomes), as well as those who are more anthropologically or sociologically
oriented – with a focus on the context (organizational culture) ( J.A. Chatman, personal
communication, March 22, 2004).
Moreover, compelling results and implications directed across levels of organizations
increase the appeal of research to academics and practitioners, a view that Professor
Greenberg offered when discussing the appeal of his article:
The study uses actual measures of workplace theft (the accounting index of “shrinkage”),
making the findings very “real” and easy to be understood by practitioners. There is nothing
esoteric about it . . . The findings were highly dramatic: Pay was cut and theft went up. Theft
[increased] more among workers given a perfunctory explanation for the pay cut than those
given a detailed explanation delivered in a highly sensitive manner. And, of course, the rate of
theft returned to its pre pay cut rate when normal pay was reinstated. There’s nothing subtle
about these findings; they hit you over the head . . . The implications of the findings are clear:
Treat people well, and they will be less inclined to steal from you than they otherwise would.
Not surprisingly, the popular press has shown considerable interest in this work over the
years ( J. Greenberg, personal communication, March 16, 2004).
MD Interest given to influential research, not just by the popular press, leads to the final
theme of why our sample of articles has been so well received.
42,10
Becoming a foundation article
When the three previous themes are combined, other scholars and practitioners cite
these articles to show a connection between recent research and past, foundational
1330 research:
It’s interesting that many recent citations of our paper are “toss-offs” in the sense that the
author is citing some foundational pieces to establish his or her familiarity with the topic
before moving onto the specifics of his or her own work. I think that’s true of many “classics”
and tends to pad the citation count in a hurry (B.E. Ashforth, personal communication, March
24, 2004).
When discussing some of the factors that led to the success of her research, Professor
Kristof-Brown agreed:
It’s the first major review piece in an area that has piqued interest in the last 15 years, so this
becomes a “generic” cite to use whenever talking about the construct (A.L. Kristof-Brown,
personal communication, March 17, 2004).

Integration of themes from question one

While the first three themes of responses to question one are not particularly novel,
academic outlets such as Academy of Management Review have devoted several
special topic forums to variants of these themes. We would be prudent, and maybe
helpful to novices, to acknowledge the prevailing wisdom of many management
scholars and practitioners. Future researchers can dramatically increase the influence
of their work by addressing a specific need in the literature, clearly defining the
construct of interest (e.g. what, how, when, and why), and considering the impact of a
construct at multiple levels of an organization, with both academics and practitioners
in mind.
We would also like to highlight one additional element of these four themes that
caught our attention. The authors in our sample of articles expressed a great deal of
passion and excitement about their work. Dr Mael, when assessing the influence
Professor Ashforth’s and his work, noted that even though their work:
. . . ran counter to the then-prevailing economic/rational model of human behavior . . . We had
a real passion for the idea and for explaining how powerful the motive [of identifying with an
organization] was and how people would identify, even to their own practical detriment. I
think the people with whom that passion resonated found somewhat of an oasis in the article
(F.A. Mael, personal communication, March 29, 2004).
This passion, as noted by Professor Gist, motivates researchers to persist, especially:
. . . when you’re working at the edge of science, [and] it may not be easy to persuade reviewers
of the merit of your ideas (and they play an important role in screening out loose and weak
ideas). However, if you do get past the gate keepers in such a case, perhaps it bodes well for a
paper’s impact (M.E. Gist, personal communication, April 3, 2004).
As many current graduate students and many recent graduates discover, conducting
quality research and submitting that research for publication can be a challenging, and
often discouraging, endeavor. Possessing a passion or a joy for your work, however, “Great works”
can sustain you through the challenging process.

When you completed writing the article, did you think it would be so well
received?
We asked the authors in our sample to provide us with their recollections regarding
how well they thought their articles would be received upon publication. Their 1331
responses generally fell into two categories:
(1) cautious optimism; and
(2) uncertainty leading to surprise.
While Professor Schneider captured the general sentiment among all ten authors who
responded to our inquiry by stating: “One never knows about these things” (B.
Schneider, personal communication, March 17, 2004), we found that the authors have
some very interesting comments about forecasting the success of their work.

Cautious optimism
The process of conducting research and having that research published, as Professor
Schneider’s quote exemplified, is an uncertain one. Some of the authors, based upon the
timing of their research, were cautiously optimistic about how well their work would
be received by their peers:
We knew that the field was ready for a conceptual piece on work-family conflict, and we
believed that it was a good article. We were enthusiastic about preparing it and subjecting it
to the review process. But I don’t think either of us anticipated that it would be used and cited
so frequently (J.H. Greenhaus, personal communication, March 19, 2004).
Professor Greenberg expressed similar optimism:
I certainly was very excited about the work when it was completed, and I suspected that it
would be popular. After all, the findings painted a clear and dramatic picture of the
phenomenon under consideration. It was a “once-in-a-lifetime” set of data ( J. Greenberg,
personal communication, March 16, 2004).
Even for those authors who did expect a positive reception of their work, they are
surprised by the overwhelming interest in their work. Professor Locke recounted his
thoughts about the article he coauthored:
We did not know but expected it would generate some interest (E.A. Locke, personal
communication, March 17, 2004).
Professor Mount, on the other hand:
. . . did think the article would have an impact . . . [but] I didn’t anticipate it would be cited 600
times by now (M.K. Mount, personal communication, March 26, 2004).
Overall, Professor Gist summarized the cautious optimism that some of these authors
might have felt when discussing her own thoughts on the topic:
I knew it was a good piece and that it should be well respected. Still, the manuscript went
through several revisions over about two years in the review process. At the time, because I
had such a challenge gaining reviewers’ understanding of the ideas, I didn’t really expect it to
have the impact it has shown (M.E. Gist, personal communication, April 3, 2004).
MD In the competitive realm of conducting and publishing organizational research, these
42,10 authors hoped for the best, while perhaps not suspecting the magnitude of success they
later achieved. This attitude was held by half of the authors in our sample; however the
remaining authors of our sample felt less certain that their work would be so well
received as it later proved to be.

1332
Uncertainty leading to surprise
Three of the authors in our sample expressed surprise at the success of their articles
because the genesis of their work occurred in graduate school or shortly thereafter.
Professor Kristof-Brown recalled that her article:
. . . started out as a paper for a graduate seminar with Ben Schneider. He’s the one who
pushed me to try and publish it. Then I got a great editor at P. Psych. [Personnel Psychology ]
(Mike Campion) and two very helpful reviewers who both saw the merit in what I was trying
to do. They are ones who saw the potential (A.L. Kristof-Brown, personal communication,
March 17, 2004).
Regarding her article, Professor Chatman provided that:
It was my dissertation and I had no sense of whether it was good work or not. I knew it was
an ambitious project, but I wasn’t sure about the way I had framed the study. Jerry Salancik
was the acting editor for the paper and he and a number of others – Charles O’Reilly, Ben
Schneider, Bob Sutton, helped me a great deal in forming the article. Jerry put me through the
ringer on the revisions, and I was worried all along that the paper would be rejected – indeed,
it was a very tough R&R [revise and resubmit] on the first round, and then I had to go
through another round of revisions before it was conditionally accepted (J.A. Chatman,
personal communication, March 22, 2004).
Dr Mael, on the other hand:
. . . had no idea that it would be well received simply because it was my first accepted article
and it ran against the zeitgeist . . . As an I-O [industrial-organizational] psychologist doing
selection work for the Army, I certainly wasn’t in a position to affect public opinion in OB or
management. Despite all that, it took off slowly and gained steady momentum (F.A. Mael,
personal communication, March 29, 2004).
Two of the authors in our sample expressed surprise at the success of their articles
based on their past experiences and where they were in terms of their professional
development. Professor Schneider offered that his earlier work:
. . . did not have much impact, but I kept working away at it and needed something to present
for my presidential address at SIOP [Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology]. So I
integrated various ideas I had swirling in my head at the time and then had the best insight –
the title. I think the title has been the strongest attraction of the article! (B. Schneider, personal
communication, March 17, 2004).
Similarly, Professor Ashforth:
. . . didn’t think the paper was particularly groundbreaking. I did think the topic of identity
was fascinating, and I saw many potential applications of the idea – indeed, 15 years later,
I’m still playing with offbeat uses of the concept. Although I was very pleased with the final
product, the paper was just one of a slew of things I was working on at the time, and I didn’t
think of it as anything special (B.E. Ashforth, personal communication, March 24, 2004).
Integration of themes from question two “Great works”
An insight that we gained from reading the authors’ responses to this topic related to
their ability to invest emotional resources in the development of both the research and
subsequent articles while also being able to move forward to the next project upon
completion of their current work. Although we have singled out one article from each
author as a great work, all of the authors in our sample have produced several other
articles that could be considered great works as well. Furthermore, the articles that we 1333
have highlighted might have been the starting point for future research, but all of the
authors in our sample have also engaged in robust lines of research unrelated to the
works that we have identified. This suggests to us that the authors included in our
sample have the ability to compartmentalize their research projects so that the success
or failure of one project does not influence other projects. It is as if all research projects,
especially at the writing stage, are independent of each other, and this independence
allowed the authors of our sample to move forward in their programs of research.

Knowing what you know now, would you change anything about the article?
For the third question, we asked the authors in our sample if they would change, in
retrospect, any portion of their articles. We categorized their responses into four
groups:
(1) refinement of constructs;
(2) inclusion of variables;
(3) further explanation of why; and
(4) satisfaction with the final product.
While all of the authors expressed some degree of satisfaction with their final product,
”There’s always something that can be improved upon” (J. Greenberg, personal
communication, March 16, 2004).

Refinement of constructs
Although most of the articles included in our sample provided definitions of constructs
or methodological advancements that continue to be used in current research, two
authors in our sample offered suggestions in this area to improve their work. Professor
Ashforth noted that:
I wasn’t that clear on the differences between identity theory and social identity theory, and
our paper tends to fudge the two. Also, we tried too hard to argue that identification is solely a
cognition, with affect relegated to an outcome. In hindsight, I think that the two are so
intertwined that a firm distinction is artificial (as Tajfel implied 30 þ years ago: I’m a slow
learner). Beyond that, though, I think the paper holds up well. Ironically, I’m most pleased
with the applications section (organizational socialization, role conflict, and inter-group
relations), even though that part of the paper is seldom cited (B.E. Ashforth, personal
communication, March 24, 2004).
Professor Greenberg points to improvements in experimental methodology:
. . . the study published in JAP [Journal of Applied Psychology ] suffers from a confounding:
The manipulation was highly complex, so we don’t know exactly what contributed to the
results – was it the amount of information given about the pay cut, or was it the sensitivity of
the treatment shown . . . There’s something else, too. In writing the article, I would emphasize
MD a key ethical point that sometimes comes up when I talk to reporters about the study.
Specifically, I was not responsible for the pay cut, and I was not responsible for the
42,10 “inadequate explanation condition”. No researcher has that kind of power – nor should he or
she ( J. Greenberg, personal communication, March 16, 2004).
The authors of both articles addressed these issues in subsequent research on their
respective topics of interest.
1334
Inclusion of variables
If given the opportunity to modify their articles, most of the authors would like to
include more variables in the models they proposed or tested. Professor Chatman:
. . . would insist that performance findings [which were included in the original manuscript]
be included. They are included in the Academy of Management Proceedings [from 1989] . . .
but not in the ASQ paper. Jerry [Salancik] wanted to omit them because he said that causality
couldn’t be sorted out (do people fit better because they perform better or vice versa). I think
we could have shown the data and still pointed to the possibility of reverse causality. The
data were separated in time. I get people asking for the performance findings all the time, and
I have to send them two articles instead of one ( J.A. Chatman, personal communication,
March 22, 2004).
Three of the authors viewed the inclusion of additional variables as a function of the
advancements made in the field subsequent to the publishing of their articles:
If we were writing it today, we would have known more about a wider range of antecedents
and outcomes of work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict. But looking back at
what was known then, I don’t think I would have changed anything (J.H. Greenhaus, personal
communication, March 19, 2004).
Professor Kristof-Brown shared a similar sentiment:
We know a lot more about fit now than we did, so it would be great to include all of this
additional information. But based on what was known at the time, it was probably as inclusive
as could be expected (A.L. Kristof-Brown, personal communication, March 17, 2004).
Professor Locke noted his opportunities to include additional variables that are related
to goal setting, as he and his colleagues:
updated the topic in a 1990 book and a 2002 American Psychologist article, Sept. 2002, so
obviously if we had known more we would have put more in – but we were satisfied that we put
in everything we knew in at that time (E.A. Locke, personal communication, March 17, 2004).

Further explanations of why

Describing why constructs are related often differentiates great research from good
research (Bacharach, 1989). Dr Mael might concur with this assessment, as:
In the original version of the paper, there was more attention to the “why” part of the
equation. For some reason, some of that explanatory aspect got lost in the process by the time
it was accepted for publication. It took many years for us to develop a fuller model of why
people identify across all domains, and the direction of my research on the subject for quite a
while afterwards was more empirical and outcome-oriented. I wish we had addressed the
question of why people identify a bit more. Only fairly recently (in a 2001 Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour article) did we really tackle the issue properly (F.A. Mael, personal
communication, March 29, 2004).
Satisfaction with the final product “Great works”
Finally, three authors in our sample, while acknowledging recent contributions to their
original work, intimated that they would change very little with their seminal articles.
Professor Schneider described his article as a starting point for an entire line of research:
I have written a number of pieces since the 1987 piece adding issues into the mix especially
issues having to do with various contingencies on the strength of the ASA model. For
example, the ASA model will be most valid when unemployment is low, the organization is 1335
young and small, the company is strategically simple (rather than complex with many
products or services or divisions), and so forth. But I think the main effects proposed in the
1987 piece hold up rather well (B. Schneider, personal communication, March 17, 2004).
Professor Mount discussed a methodological issue brought up by others in the field:
I wouldn’t change too much, although some have questioned the way our raters assigned
some scales to the Big Five structure (M.K. Mount, personal communication, March 26, 2004).
Finally, Professor Gist noted that she has:
. . . always been happy with the final result – even more so knowing how the paper has fared
(M.E. Gist, personal communication, April 3, 2004).

Integration of themes for question three

As a seminal or foundational article, it is easy to look back on the original works with
full knowledge of what has been subsequently added to that line of research and
lament the lack of omniscience. However, the motive to continually improve previous
achievements has allowed the authors included in our sample to help move the field of
management forward. Thus, while most of the authors in our sample expressed some
degree of satisfaction with these past articles, it seems that they derive more
satisfaction from the process of developing their next great work.

What articles do you consider “great works”? Why?

In question four, we asked the authors in our sample what they considered great
works. Table III summarizes the articles cited by the authors in our sample as
influential. Three general themes emerged from the authors’ responses to this question:
(1) personal great works;
(2) great works by mentors; and
(3) great works as paradigms.

Personal great works

For some of the authors in our sample, the designation of an article as a great work was
based on personal preferences, often related to what each author drew on while writing
their articles:
I’m drawn to papers that are rich in insight and nuance, which is often the province of
qualitative papers and straight theory papers. My personal “classics” include: Van Mannen
and Schein (1979) – it’s a brilliant piece of theorizing, tying together a raft of largely
qualitative studies on socialization, and grounded with compelling anecdotes; Goffman (1959,
1961, 1963) – he had a wonderful eye for the telling anecdote, and wrote with the élan of a
novelist; Staw (1980) – maybe it’s because I read this (and Van Maanen and Schein) during
MD
42,10
Author Cited great works

B.E. Ashforth Goffman (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Goffman (1961), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates
1336 Goffman (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
Staw (1980), “Rationality and justification in organizational life”
Van Maanen and Schein (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational
socialization”
Zucker (1977), “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence”
J.A. Chatman O’Reilly et al. (1989), “Work group demography, social integration, and
turnover”
Tsui et al. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and organizational
attachment”
Staw (1976), “Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a
chosen course of action”
Schneider (1983a), “Interactional psychology and organizational behavior”
Schneider (1987b), “E ¼ f ðP; BÞ: the road to a radical approach to
person-environment fit”
Schneider (1983b), “Interactional psychology and organizational behavior”
J.H. Greenhaus Locke in Dunnette (1976)
A.L. Kristof-Brown Chatman (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model of
person-organization fit”
Schneider (1987a), “The people make the place”
Barrick and Mount (1991), “The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis”
Edwards and Parry (1993), “On the use of polynomial regression equations as an
alternative to difference scores in organizational research”
B. Schneider Bowers (1973), “Situationism in psychology: an analysis and critique”
Campbell et al. (1970), Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness
Schein (1990), Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View
Aldrich (1999), Organizations Evolving
J. Greenberg Latham et al. (1988), “Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial
experiments by the antagonists: application to the Erez-Latham dispute
regarding participation in goal setting”
E.A. Locke Bandura (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control
Bandura (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory
Locke and Latham (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
Table III. and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey”
“Great works” cited by F.A. Mael Kelman (1961), “Processes of opinion change”.
authors in our sample Levinson (1970), “A psychologist diagnoses merger failures“

my doctoral years that it had such a formative impact. It goes beneath the surface veil of
organizations to generate profound ideas on the weird and wonderful effect of rationalization
tendencies; and Zucker (1977) – she adapted the Sherif telekinetic phenomenon to explain
how norms emerge and become embedded in social systems. It’s a seemingly simple study
with profound implications (B.A. Ashforth, personal communication, March 24, 2004).

Professor Schneider offered his insights on great works:

 This is too much of a topic for me to address in any brief form because it depends on the “Great works”
domains for the article. For example, in basic psychology I have some stuff, I/O others, OT
[organizational theory] still others and so forth. The article that had the biggest impact on my
thinking with regard to ASA was a paper I cite in the article by Kenneth Bowers (1973). This
is a brilliant tour de force that all I/O, OB, OT, and HRM people should read before they make
any assumptions about the causes of behavior in organizations. The best book ever written
related to I/O theory and practice is the book by Campbell Dunnette, Lawler and Weick (1970).
Schein’s (1990) book on leadership and organizational culture has had a big impact on me, 1337
and my prediction is that the next big impact book is one by Aldrich (1999). Aldrich is an OT
type, so we would not usually read stuff by him in I/O; but the book is a wonderful and
multi-level/multi-layered treatment of the founding and growth and development of
organizations (B. Schneider, personal communication, March 17, 2004).
Professor Greenberg listed a single favorite article:
Latham, Erez, and Locke (1988). What I find so special about this work is that the authors
jointly designed four studies to try to reconcile contradictory findings in the goal-setting
literature regarding the role of participation. As it turned out, both Latham and Erez were
correct, albeit under different circumstances. Instead of merely adding to derision, as so often
occurs, the authors agreed to some crucial experiments designed to answer a key question to
their mutual satisfaction. We need more of this kind of work, in my opinion (J. Greenberg,
personal communication, March 16, 2004).
Professor Mount contended:
. . . probably about anything Schimdt and Hunter have written (M.K. Mount, personal
communication, March 26, 2004).
Dr Mael provided some articles and some authors:
Kelman (1961), Levinson (1970), and the writing of Henri Tajfel, John Turner, and Robert
Merton (no specific article) (F.A. Mael, personal communication, March 29, 2004).
Dr Gist probably best summarized the sentiment expressed by the authors who cited
personal favorites as great works by stating:
I really don’t have a good answer to this question. Classics, to me, are pieces I frequently draw
on to support whatever topic I’m writing on at the moment. They change as newer works
come out to replace them. Also, the pieces I revere are sometimes quite different than those
others revere. So, perhaps this is a cop out, but I’m uncomfortable naming one work over
another as a ‘classic’ in that sense (M.E. Gist, personal communication, April 3, 2004).

Great works by mentors

We can probably make an assumption that every scholar or practitioner who conducts
research and publishes is primarily influenced by the work of their mentors. Professor
Chatman elaborated on this view:
Some of my favorites include those by my mentors (e.g., Charles O’Reilly, Barry Staw, Phil
Tetlock). For example, the O’Reilly, Caldwell, and Barnett (1989); Tsui, O’Reilly, and Egan
(1992) – both of which were ASQ scholarly impact winners as well, are great because they are
theoretically rigorous and they offer sophisticated field studies that effectively test the
research questions in rich and complex contexts. I love Barry Staw’s earlier work on
escalation (e.g., “Knee deep in the big muddy”) because he was able to capture a phenomenon
using a natural field experiment. I also love Phil Tetlock’s work on impression management
and accountability during the 1980s for the same reasons – theoretically rigorous, interesting
MD and compelling empirical tests. Of course, I am a huge Pfeffer fan as, through his career, he
has been a master of making compelling arguments by showing a key slice of pertinent data.
42,10 Bob Sutton’s work during the 1980s and early 1990s on emotion among bill collectors and
convenience store employees was also cleverly conceived and I admired it as such. I am a fan
of the in group/out group paradigm dating back to the Robbers Cave experiments (Sherif
et al.) and more recently (1980s) followed up by Rod Kramer and Marilyn Brewer’s work on
in-group and out-group identities. I was fascinated by how little it takes to cause people to
1338 identify fiercely with a particular group. Finally and perhaps most directly related to the 1991
ASQ paper, I was inspired by Ben Schneider’s paper laying out the Attraction, Selection,
Attrition model. Though I thought his 1983 ROB [Research in Organizational Behavior ]
chapter was more theoretically grounded, the 1987 JVB [Journal of Vocational Behavior ]
paper offered evidence of the ASA model. I could go on and on, but these are the first that
come to mind (J.A. Chatman, personal communication, March 22, 2004).

Great works as paradigms

Finally, some of the authors in our sample expressed the view that the term “great
works” is reserved for those articles that create a new paradigm for understanding a
construct or phenomenon:
I think of pieces that really spark a “movement” or a theoretical domain. For example,
Schneider’s “The people make the place” (1987) that introduced the ASA model, or Chatman
(1989) that introduced the concept of P-O [person-organization] fit; or Edwards (1993) that
started his critique of difference scores and introduced polynomial regression as a
measurement alternative. Also, strong meta-analyses in an area, such as Barrick and Mount
(1991) regarding the Big Five personality traits and work outcomes. Looking over this list, I
don’t see that there is any one “formula”. You just need to be focusing on a topic that people
are interested in and giving them something useable (A.L. Kristof-Brown, personal
communication, March 17, 2004).
Professor Greenhaus felt that:
. . . the 1976 chapter by Locke on job satisfaction in the Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology is a classic because it raised fundamental and timeless issues
about the meaning of that concept (J.H. Greenhaus, personal communication, March 19, 2004).
Professor Locke summarized this view by stating:
I would not call anything that has been cited a classic – it would have to be something that
really identified some important psychological concept and/or reported some significant and
valid line of research. There are precious few examples of this in the field in my opinion. Good
examples would be Bandura’s 1986 and 1997 books. It is harder to find classic articles
because you can only report so much in a short space. I think our American Psychologist
article is more deserving of the term classic that the Psychological Bulletin article because it is
more inclusive and integrated and summarized a 35 year research program (E.A. Locke,
personal communication, March 17, 2004).

Integration of themes from question four

In reading the responses of the authors to this question, we drew three conclusions.
First, the term “great work” is, not surprisingly, subjective. Moreover, the frequency
with which an article is cited might not be the best indicator of a great work. What one
scholar or practitioner deems a great work strongly relates to that individual’s interests “Great works”
or current research, which is linked to our second conclusion. Scholars and
practitioners are heavily influenced by their mentors. As some of the articles that we
included in our list of great works had their genesis during the authors’ graduate
training, the articles or research read during these formative years of training had a
lasting influence on future work. Indeed, many of the authors included in our sample
continue to develop, refine, and expand on their seminal works a decade after these 1339
works appeared in print. As we mentioned earlier in the present research, the articles
that we selected for this research were the articles that shaped our development and
research during our graduate training. Finally, although many of the authors hesitated
to use the term “great works”, we found it interesting that many of the authors in our
sample listed each other’s work as being a “great work”. We contacted each author
individually, and each author had no knowledge of the other authors that we contacted.
While our sample was limited to authors who mainly conducted OB and HRM
research, it seems that there is some consensus about great works.

Conclusion
The present research gave us the opportunity to obtain the insights of ten authors who
we feel have written great works in organizational behavior and HRM. We asked the
authors four basic questions that we felt would help us gain some understanding of
how they feel about their own great works and the great works of others. What we
learned from our sample of authors was that they had great passion for their work, and
this passion enabled them to produce research that defined or clarified pertinent
management constructs, furthered our understanding of why organizational
phenomena occur, and shared an appreciation for a diverse body of what they felt
are great works of others. While passion certainly aided our authors’ creativity and
persistence, it became clear to us that these authors possessed another attribute that
certainly complemented their passion for their work. The unique ability to
compartmentalize their research projects probably allows the authors in our sample
to enjoy each stage in the development of their work. When they experience difficulty
or failure in one project, they can always focus their energies on another project. If we
were to develop a profile of a researcher who consistently produces highly valued
research, we would venture to guess that, aside from natural ability and motivation,
the ability to compartmentalize successes and failures would be included in that
profile. After all, everyone can read the great works in their field, but not everyone can
produce the next great work.
We also found that, much like anything else in life, timing is important. The authors
in our sample, by and large, benefited from publishing their work when the field was
primed for it. This is not say that timing is everything, however, as we could easily
make the argument that the authors in our sample produced research that made the
timing appear just right. If we were to conduct an exhaustive literature review of other
research concurrently published when the articles we have highlighted were published,
we would most likely find that those contemporary articles have not been as well
received, in terms of citations. The quality of the articles (the what, how, when, and
why) sets the articles that we have highlighted apart from contemporary research
published in their respective fields. While citations might not be the best indicator of
“great works”, we certainly feel that the quality of the articles, which is a function of
MD the abilities of the authors in our sample, make these articles not just great works but
42,10 seminal works.
Finally, for us, this process was strangely humanizing. After all, the authors in our
sample were heretofore exemplars or abstractions of management knowledge. When
reading the articles of these authors during our graduate training, we somehow
disconnected the people from their works. We encourage novices in the field of
1340 management to view great works through two perspectives. First, these great works
are exemplars to help understand some organizational construct or phenomenon.
Second, these great works are also exemplars for how to write an outstanding article.
The authors of great works present the essential elements needed to describe their
research in a manner that increases the utility of the research to scholars and
practitioners alike. To ignore either perspective limits the contributions made to the
field of management by the authors of great works.

References
Aldrich, H. (1999), Organizations Evolving, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F.A. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989), “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman/Times Books/ Henry
Holt & Co., New York, NY.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big 5 personality dimensions and job performance:
a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Bedeian, A.G. and Wren, D.A. (2001), “Most influential management books of the 20th century”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 221-5.
Bowers, K.S. (1973), “Situationism in psychology: an analysis and critique”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 307-36.
Campbell, J.J., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. (1970), Managerial Behavior,
Performance, and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Chatman, J.A. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model of
person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 333-49.
Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization into public
accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 459-84.
Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.) (1976), Handbook of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL.
Edwards, J.R. and Parry, M.E. (1993), “On the use of polynomial regression equations as an
alternative to difference scores in organizational research”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1577-613.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, Oxford.
Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other “Great works”
Inmates, Doubleday (Anchor), Oxford.
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden costs of
pay cuts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 561-8.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”, 1341
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Kelman, H.C. (1961), “Processes of opinion change”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 57-78.
Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49.
Latham, G.P., Erez, M. and Locke, E.A. (1988), “Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design
of crucial experiments by the antagonists: application to the Erez-Latham dispute
regarding participation in goal setting”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 753-72.
Levinson, H. (1970), “A psychologist diagnoses merger failures”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 48, March-April, p. 139.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: a 35-year odyssey”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-17.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. and Latham, G.P. (1981), “Goal setting and task performance:
1969-1980”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 125-52.
Locke, K. (2002), “The grounded theory approach to qualitative research”, in Drasgow, F. and
Schmitt, N. (Eds), Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 17-43.
O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F. and Barnett, W.P. (1989), “Work group demography, social
integration, and turnover”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, March, pp. 21-37.
Schein, E.H. (1990), Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Schneider, B. (1983a), “Interactional psychology and organizational behavior”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 1-31.
Schneider, B. (1983b), “Interactional psychology and organizational behavior”, in Cummings,
L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-32.
Schneider, B. (1987a), “People make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-53.
Schneider, B. (1987b), “E ¼ f(P,B): the road to a radical approach to person-environment fit”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 353-61.
Staw, B.M. (1976), “Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen
course of action”, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Vol. 16, pp. 27-44.
Staw, B.M. (1980), “Rationality and justification in organizational life”, in Cummings, L.L. and
Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 45-80.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, December, pp. 549-79.
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”, in
Staw, B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 209-64.
MD Werner, S. (2002), “Recent developments in international management research: a review of 20
top management journals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 277-305.
42,10 Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-5.
Wiseman, R.M. and Skilton, P.F. (1999), “Divisions and differences: exploring publication
preferences and productivity across management subfields”, Journal of Management
1342 Inquiry, Vol. 8, pp. 299-320.
Wren, D.A. (1994), The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Zickar, M.J. and Highhouse, S. (2001), “Measuring prestige of journals in industrial-
organizational psychology”, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 29-36.
Zucker, L.G. (1977), “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 726-43.